It's the fact that every single person knows all about Charles and Camilla's adultery (unless you've been under a rock for decades) that makes her such a contentious figure to many, in my view. The Church of England is a fairly conservative body which loathes controversy and that makes it wary of stating publicly it would accept her as Queen Consort.

Every single person

When a marriage breaks down and the couple continues to be married but have separate lives is it adultery or an open marriage?

The clergy that will anoint Camilla and Charles is not the clergy that anointed the Queen.

No one thought the church would embrace homosexuals.

In the U.K. homosexual activity was a criminal offense until 1967. Homosexuals in the U.K. were still treated differently until the 21st century.

Quote:

In 2000, the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 were invoked to ensure the passage of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 which equalised that age of consent at 16 for both homosexual and heterosexual behaviours throughout the UK.

Yes, but look how long it took for those measures to be accepted. I don't think Charles and Camilla have a couple of decades or more to spare waiting for attitudes in the upper ranks of the Church of England to change.

Charles may succeed as king next week and be crowned next summer. We hope not, but you never know. I don't think the stance of senior clergy would undergo a huge sea change in the next year or two.

Yes, but look how long it took for those measures to be accepted. I don't think Charles and Camilla have a couple of decades or more to spare waiting for attitudes in the upper ranks of the Church of England to change.

Charles may succeed as king next week and be crowned next summer. We hope not, but you never know. I don't think the stance of senior clergy would undergo a huge sea change in the next year or two.

She is not Diana SHE. STOLE. DIANAS. PLACE!! IT IS SO NOT FAIR!!(stomping like a cranky 4 year old)

The hard truth is, Diana exited herself from her 'place'. It's a very sad story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong

More people know about Charles and Camilla's relationship while married to others than members of the British public knew about the liaisons of these historical public figures at the time they were crowned, though. Neither William IV nor Edward VIII were married when they began their romances, either.

Even the press coverage of Edward and Mrs Simpson at the time of the Abdication was a deal more restrained than the coverage of the War of the Wales was.

It's the fact that most adult Britons know all about Charles and Camilla's adultery (unless theyve been under a rock for decades) that makes Camilla such a contentious figure to many, in my view. The Church of England is a fairly conservative body which loathes controversy and that makes it wary of stating publicly it would accept her as Queen Consort.

As far as I know, none of the Queen Consorts (at least in the modern era) were divorced or unfaithful to their husbands. Therefore the Archbishop of Canterbury was able to anoint them with a clear conscience, whatever he felt about the males.

Why is it that so much is known? It's because of Diana, pure and simple. It was she who was broadcasting it. A less discreet member of the BRF there has not been, I think. Why are Diana's serial transgressions less known? Because Charles never breathed a word disgracing his wife. Never once. Charles' one mistress is pilloried forever, yet Diana's numerous liaisons, and embarrassing conduct stalking men, gets a pass. Curious. Just saying.

Diana would have been Queen and I am assuming you would have been fine with it.

Camilla is, in 2015, still a divisive figure as far as some sections of the British public is concerned and it's not because of anything other than her role in Charles's past.

Look at her poll numbers just this year and she and Charles have been married since 2005. It's all very well saying that people should move on and get over it, when it's crystal clear that that's not happening.

The Archbishop of Canterbury may not want to speak to this issue at this time, or he may not want to anoint and crown a divorced woman who quite clearly was involved in an adulterous affair, as Queen Consort, and that's the question isn't it, not how long Camilla has been divorced from her first husband?

[....]
The Archbishop of Canterbury may not want to speak to this issue at this time, or he may not want to anoint and crown a divorced woman who quite clearly was involved in an adulterous affair [...]

Not so very long ago it was unithinkable that the Church of England would anoint female vicars. They did.

Not so long ago it was unthinkable that the Church of England would anount female bishops. They did.

Until recently it was unthinkable that the Church of England would allow same-gender couples to be blessed. They are moving towards it.

Previous Archbishops of Canterbury have anointed and crowned previous Kings whose extramarital escapades and even extramarital children were known to the public.

The Archbishop of Canterbury will be the last to block anything regarding Camilla. These days the Church of England is as fexible as the elastic of a bungee-jumper.

I think the CoE has a far greater issue to contend with at the moment: how to be relevant in the life of the modern Briton. Most people I know only visit the Church for Weddings, Christenings and Funerals. Attendance is dismal and dropping. I think the CoE is increasingly have to move with the times, and adapt to changing social norms. I would be surprised if the CoE would, in practice, have an issue with C&C. Yes, they were divorced and remarried, but they are practicing Christians, and regular churchgoers (and that is a rarity!)

I think the CoE has a far greater issue to contend with at the moment: how to be relevant in the life of the modern Briton. Most people I know only visit the Church for Weddings, Christenings and Funerals. Attendance is dismal and dropping. I think the CoE is increasingly have to move with the times, and adapt to changing social norms. I would be surprised if the CoE would, in practice, have an issue with C&C. Yes, they were divorced and remarried, but they are practicing Christians, and regular churchgoers (and that is a rarity!)

Okay that is a bit of a huge statement. There are sections of the Church of England growing and there are people such as myself who go to Church several times a week. The Church of England remains part of The House of Lord's. Christmas and Easter messages by Justin Welby make the news. Ms. Middleton was confirmed in the Church of England prior to her marriage in the Church of England, they remain a powerful and important part of this country in my humble opinion. Does H.M ever have a Christmas message were she does not mention her personal faith?

The churches view on open marriage may not be the same as in the 1950s.

Look at how far the world has come on homosexual relationships.

Same-sex marriages have been legalized in civil law in the UK, but not in Church canon law. On the contrary, as I understand it, when the Uk parliament legalized same-sex marriage, it also explicitly forbade the CoE from celebrating religious same-sex unions,

Besides, I don't see what your argument has to do with the fact that Charles and Camilla were not (and actually could not) be remarried in the CoE, even though the Church blessed their civil marriage.

I think the CoE has a far greater issue to contend with at the moment: how to be relevant in the life of the modern Briton. Most people I know only visit the Church for Weddings, Christenings and Funerals. Attendance is dismal and dropping. I think the CoE is increasingly have to move with the times, and adapt to changing social norms. I would be surprised if the CoE would, in practice, have an issue with C&C. Yes, they were divorced and remarried, but they are practicing Christians, and regular churchgoers (and that is a rarity!)

I am not a religious person and it is not up to me to tell any Church how to run their affairs. However, based on statistical evidence, all Protestant churches mostly in northern and northwrstern Europe that have taken líberal positions on issues like ordination of women or same-sex unions continue to see sharp declines in membership whereas the Catholic church, which has broadly stuck to a conservative position, has suffered a slower membership decline in comparison.

My point is not that liberal positions have hurt European Protestant churches and that they would have been better off with a conservative stance, but rather that secularization in northern Europe is part. of a much broader and multi-factor social trend and , therefore, it is misleading for the churches to think they will stop or reverse their decline in attendance and membership simply by taking liberal views on marriage, divorce and sexuality for example,

When churches take those positions, they should do it because they genuinely believe it is the right thing to do so and not because they hope to boost their membership ,

There are sections of the Church of England growing and there are people such as myself who go to Church several times a week.

Said with the utmost respect, there are always people who are regular church goers, but I personally don't know very many.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honeybees

The Church of England remains part of The House of Lord's. Christmas and Easter messages by Justin Welby make the news. Ms. Middleton was confirmed in the Church of England prior to her marriage in the Church of England, they remain a powerful and important part of this country in my humble opinion. Does H.M ever have a Christmas message were she does not mention her personal faith?

I am not doubting the institutional role of the Church, I am merely querying its relevance in the life of the average Briton today.

To go back to your point about the Easter message of the AoC, it may make the news, but not many people know what was said in the message. IMO, to most Britons, Easter is that nice long weekend, and a time to get away.

Whatever the views are of the average Brit about the Church of England, that isn't going to affect Camilla being crowned as Queen Consort, however. I think both CP and the senior clergy will be watching for any softening of public opinion about the title she is to bear in the future.

Same-sex marriages have been legalized in civil law in the UK, but not in Church canon law. On the contrary, as I understand it, when the Uk parliament legalized same-sex marriage, it also explicitly forbade the CoE from celebrating religious same-sex unions,

Besides, I don't see what your argument has to do with the fact that Charles and Camilla were not (and actually could not) be remarried in the CoE, even though the Church blessed their civil marriage.

They could have been married in a CoE church IF they found a minister who would have done so (my late minister would have had they asked as he didn't believe that Camilla contributed to the break down of Charles and Diana's marriage in the first place believing that the marriage was over before Charles returned to Camilla - in other words he believed Charles' version of events rather than Diana's).

That is the limits placed on the clergy - if they believe that the two people haven't contributed to the breakdown of either person's first marriage he or she is able to marry them in the church.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, of the day, decided that he couldn't marry them and as the heir to the throne Charles should only be married by the AoC. He could have gone north of the border and married in any Church of Scotland church if he had so desired but then wouldn't have had the blessing of the Archbishop.

Camilla is, in 2015, still a divisive figure as far as some sections of the British public is concerned and it's not because of anything other than her role in Charles's past.

Exactly. The proof is that , in the YouGov poll, almost a third of the respondents thought Camilla should be given no royal title at all and only 16 % wanted her to be known as queen.

I think it became clear in Diana's funeral that the BRF can no longer ignore public opinion and will not do it in the future. As long as the public doesn't want Queen Camilla, she won't be referred to as queen when Charles becomes king.

When given a reality check, what it all boils down to is that we still have absolutely no real clue what will happen when the time comes and Charles is crowned as King. We can speculate all we want and we can turn to what has happened in the past and the results of different polls that were taken but we still are left with pure speculation on what will happen.

We do know that short of death, Camilla will be by his side as the strong, supporting spouse that she is and that, to Charles, is what matters the most. She doesn't actively seek any kind of recognition or limelight or fame or fortune but does what she does admirably in my book.

__________________

__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~